I cannot state how stongly I belive that where one works as a teacher or administrator should not automatically dictate where their children should attend school. There is far more to the decision than just whether it’s “good enough” to work in therefore its “good enough” to send the children to.

Dicks flat out said they want to minimize the potential that their brand becomes a part of the narrative in a school shooting. They haven’t lied, not hidden their intentions. They aren’t sneaky about it, nor hiding it. They aren’t casting any aspersions as to the intentions of another retailer who does things differently. They feel this is in the best interest of their brand. Really, that’s all they are doing...protecting their brand.

This argument works if there is an attempt to actually stop US citizens from owning firearms. There are no conditions proposed or in place that prevent prevent citizens from owning firearms. Further, it cannot be put into place.
That does not preclude corporate or private entities from choosing to stop transacting in certain or all firearm products, or to set their own policies under which they will conduct transactions. And to extend...

I believe you're trying to stretch the argument. I think everyone is having a knee jerk reaction because it's what is done when any limits or regulations are suggested on guns of any type. But this isn't at all related to laws, governmental regulations or bans. This is simply a business making a policy for their business. It does not seem to do so based on ethical standards or morals. It simply is a matter of not wanting to be tied to a...

There isn't a federal law saying you can buy a gun at 18 either. There is a Constitutional amendment that one can own a gun. It does not state that one attains that right at 18. It also doesn't say one has to sell a gun to all without restrictions.